FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant "Les Laboratoires Servier", is the largest independent French pharmaceutical group. Servier is present in 150 countries worldwide, 100 millions of patients are treated each day with the group’s various medicines.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks and domain names worldwide for "Servier".
The position of the “Servier” term within the domain name is in the view of Complainant important insofar as domain names are read from left to right and the average internet user will very likely identify “servier” within the disputed domain name. The trademark of the Complainant further stands out because of the use of a hyphen between “servier” and “medical” in the disputed domain name.
The second level of the disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark “Servier”, with the addition of the word “medical”.
The Complainant contends that the distinctive component of the disputed domain name is “Servier”, which is the Complainant’s trademark. It is well established in the view of Complainant that the addition of a generic term such as “medical” does not allow a domain name to avoid confusing similarity with a trademark. In the present case, the addition of the term “medical” does not lessen the inevitable confusion of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the Complainant contends that the association of its trademark with “medical” aggravates the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with its SERVIER trademark, as “medical” is a generic term that is particularly relevant regarding the Complainant’s business area.
It is also well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
The Complainant furthermore states, that the disputed domain name as registered by the Respondent is at the very least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the first condition of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is deemed satisfied.
The Servier Group was founded in 1954 by Dr Jacques Servier who took over a small pharmaceutical company and over the years transformed it into the largest independent French pharmaceutical company using his own surname as a company denomination, business name, trademark and later as a domain name.
As stated above, "Servier" is a surname that has no specific meaning either in the French language and, to the Complainant’s knowledge, in any other language, the only exception being one of the many conjugations of the German verb “Servieren” (imperative). This exception should not be considered as relevant in this case, considering the past use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent therefore in the view of Complainant cannot claim that "Servier" is a descriptive term which he needs to use in the course of his business activities to describe his goods or services.
A worldwide trademark search failed to reveal any "Servier" trademarks other than those in the name of the Complainant or its affiliates. To the best of the Complainant knowledge, the Respondent cannot therefore claim to have trademark rights over the word "Servier".
The Complainant has no business relationship with the Respondent, who does not enjoy any license, partnership or authorization from the Complainant.
In addition, the use of the disputed domain name, which redirects towards an error page, does not show any use that would indicate a bona fide offering of goods or service attached to the disputed domain name. Furthermore the Complainant argues, that the former use of the disputed domain name, which redirected towards a website posing as being affiliated with the Complainant, cannot be considered as legitimate.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the second condition of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is deemed satisfied.
"Servier" is the surname of the founder of the Complainant company and a fanciful, arbitrary, distinctive term. The combination of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and its extensive use across the world makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent did not know about the Complainant before the registration of the disputed domain name.
Top-ranked results of a Google search relate to the Complainant.
Therefore, the Complainant argues, that at the very least, the Respondent knew or should have known that, when registering and using the disputed domain name, he would do so in violation of the Complainant’s earlier rights.
This is all the more true when the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name toward a website published in German language and posing as “Servier”, mentioning some of the Complainant’s figures and partnerships. Said website has been taken down by its hosting provider after a Takedown notice sent by the Complainant’s representative.
In light of the above and provided the absence of any authorization from the Complainant, the Complainant strongly believes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name and any related service or document.
Regarding the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the past use of the disputed domain name qualifies as an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site previously accessible through the disputed domain name.
Although the disputed domain name is not used on the web anymore on the date of the present Complaint, the Complainant sees no possible way whatsoever in which the Respondent would use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offer of products or services. In those circumstances, the Complainant contends that any active use of the domain name by the Respondent would de facto amount to bad faith active use.
Currently, the disputed domain name points toward an error page.
In light of all the elements above, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered, was used and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. Considering the above, the Complainant cannot imagine a good-faith registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the third condition of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is deemed satisfied.
|